PonyFans.com

Samurai Stang wrote:

b_caesar wrote:
Agreed. Nor can it exclusively be the fault or hindrance, whether perceived or real, of RGT.

That, however, I disagree upon. As president, Turner possesses a number of powers, enough to hinder the building of such a practice facility. He is entirely capable of directing the building situation in either direction.

Capable, yes. But entirely? No.

SMU's Board of Trustees has a significant level of influence over those sorts of decisions as well. Yes, they may generally follow various recommended courses of action as put forward, but they are no rubber stamp, either, to RGT's whims or desires. And he works at their pleasure.

b_caesar wrote:

Samurai Stang wrote:

b_caesar wrote:
Agreed. Nor can it exclusively be the fault or hindrance, whether perceived or real, of RGT.

That, however, I disagree upon. As president, Turner possesses a number of powers, enough to hinder the building of such a practice facility. He is entirely capable of directing the building situation in either direction.

Capable, yes. But entirely? No.

SMU's Board of Trustees has a significant level of influence over those sorts of decisions as well. Yes, they may generally follow various recommended courses of action as put forward, but they are no rubber stamp, either, to RGT's whims or desires. And he works at their pleasure.

The Board of Trustees has such an overlap with the Circle of Champions that one can safely assume that significant opposition to an indoor practice facility will not be found among them.

While its not on campus, I'd almost bet there's an old abandoned hanger at Love Field that can be bought probably cheaply due to environmental issues. Fix it up, put some paint on it and A/C and voila you have an indoor practice facility with big doors on it to open on nice days. Take that UT.

Water Pony wrote:

Samurai Stang wrote:

b_caesar wrote:You really think that if someone walked into RGT's office on Monday with $5 mil for an IPF he would pass it up?

One must only ask himself which is more likely:

1. Turner hinders the athletic department
2. SMU has a shortage of wealthy alumni

Yawn! Your posts are a broken record. Turner is not the issue.

Please, sell us once again on your argument as to why it's more important that we upgrade our swimming facilities. We'd all like to see that stream of idiocy on the football board once again. It's not like I go to the other sports forum and cause trouble. Hell, I don't think I've ever even been to the other sports forum, period.

I won't wade into the larger "for or agin' Turner debate. I'll limit my comments to the following:

1. I believe an IPF is inevitable. It will happen at SMU within the next 5-10 years. Its a question of prioritizing, fundraising and where it will be located. I don't see Turner expending political capital to stop such a project if everyone else is on board. That just doesn't make sense.

2. SMU has a ton of building projects either being built or on the drawing board right now. This ranges from the Bush Library to academic buildings to the work on the south side of Mockingbird to Moody upgrades to a new natatorium. An IPF project will need to be prioritized, fundraised for, and scheduled somewhere within that larger context. With so much on its plate building-wise, adding an IPF project at this time could certainly be more complicated than simply whether a person or persons are for it or against it in principal. In the same vein, Orsini is the AD of the entire athletic department, not just the football program. If he's already promised and begun fundraising for other athletic projects like Moody and the natatorium, it could be politically difficult for him to simply tell the other programs that an IPF has jumped those projects in line and they are going to have to wait.

3. From what I have heard, June Jones very much wants to build an IPF. This leads me to believe that it has probably come up in meetings he's had with Orsini and Turner. Whatever they told him must have satisfied June enough for him to sign a contract extension. So I'm not too worried about it.

IPF is absolutely inevitable if we truly aspire to be " top 25 in everything we do".

StallionsModelT wrote:IPF is absolutely inevitable if we truly aspire to be " top 25 in everything we do".

This. Highland Park has one for God's sake. It's embarrassing that we don't.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

StallionsModelT wrote:IPF is absolutely inevitable if we truly aspire to be " top 25 in everything we do".

This. Highland Park has one for God's sake. It's embarrassing that we don't.

And just about every high school in North Texas.

CoxMustangFan wrote:(I think I'm one of the few that hope a baseball team is on the horizon).

There are more than a few who would like to see that, but due to title nine the cost of a new men's sport would be prohibitive.

Not every school has a baseball team and not every school has a soccer team. TCU opted to have a baseball team and let their soccer team become a club sport and SMU did the opposite. It made sense for us to do that as our soccer teams have been very successful over the years...baseball not.

PK wrote:Not every school has a baseball team and not every school has a soccer team. TCU opted to have a baseball team and let their soccer team become a club sport and SMU did the opposite. It made sense for us to do that as our soccer teams have been very successful over the years...baseball not.

Nobody gives a flying [deleted] about soccer... Last time I checked SMU is in Texas...

Dutch wrote:

Sammy 11 wrote:You guys have a good setup and while I feel our practice facilities and weight rooms can hold up against anyone not named Oregon I don't think any gap between our schools is going to cost recruits either way.

We have a big edge with the indoor facility, you have a newer & nicer venue for your stadium. Both schools are probably going to build on which one they don't have in the next few years.

we are in dallas, you are in waco.

1st and 10 vs Cracker Barrel.

SMU89 wrote:

Dutch wrote:

Sammy 11 wrote:You guys have a good setup and while I feel our practice facilities and weight rooms can hold up against anyone not named Oregon I don't think any gap between our schools is going to cost recruits either way.

We have a big edge with the indoor facility, you have a newer & nicer venue for your stadium. Both schools are probably going to build on which one they don't have in the next few years.

we are in dallas, you are in waco.

1st and 10 vs Cracker Barrel.

Nonsense. 1st and 10 vs George's.

FIFY

East Coast Mustang wrote: Please, sell us once again on your argument as to why it's more important that we upgrade our swimming facilities. We'd all like to see that stream of idiocy on the football board once again. It's not like I go to the other sports forum and cause trouble. Hell, I don't think I've ever even been to the other sports forum, period.

Why is my comment that Turner is not the issue concerning an IPF or any other conspiracy theory so easily tossed out possibly related to my support for non-revenue sports, including a replacement Natatorium?

BTW, you can sleep comfortably that a new swimming pool will not happen anytime soon, despite the obvious need. Happy?

I think everyone understands the priority of FB and BB over other sports, but in defense of Water Pony, an upgrade to our Swimming and Diving facilities would probably return SMU to Top 10.

No other SMU sport that can make that claim.

I personally would love to see us make that improvement. (of course after Moody and FB upgrades)